Dillip Sil Vs State of Odisha

This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 of the petitioner has arisen out of Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.317 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 395 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M, Malkanagiri.

¶17

I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶18

The petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 302 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 on the allegations alleged against him that, he (petitioner) along with Biplab Mandal and Jayanta Mallick have committed murder of the wife of the accused Biplab

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

Mandal i.e. Rinku Mandal on dated 28.04.2024 at about 11 AM inside Singharajkhunta Jungle under Malkanagiri Police Station.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted for liberal consideration of his bail contending that, he (petitioner) has not participated in committing murder of the deceased Rinku Mandal, because he was not present at the alleged spot of murder inside the Jungle, as his two co-accused persons i.e. Biplab Mandal and Jayanta Mallick had participated in committing murder of deceased Rinku Mandal, to which, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate objected contending that, the petitioner was involved in the incident of commission of murder of the deceased being associated with his two co-accused persons i.e. Biplab Mandal and Jayanta Mallick, for which, he (petitioner) should not be allowed to go on bail.

¶22

It is forthcoming from the forwarding report of the petitioner prepared by the Investigating Officer that, at the time of alleged incident inside the Jungle, the petitioner was standing on the road outside the jungle, but only there is allegation against him (petitioner) that, he was watching the movements of public at the time of alleged incident inside the jungle.

¶23

“ Bail by its very nature in person-specific. In case offences are committed by more than one accused, then individual role played by each of them is to be taken

¶24

Page 2 of 4.

¶25

into account, while considering whether to admit a particular accused to go on bail or not .”

¶26

In this case at hand, the petitioner is in jail custody since 30.04.2024.

¶27

When during the staying of the petitioner inside the jail, the investigation of the case has already been completed and when the presence of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of any further investigation may not be required due to completion of the investigation and when the petitioner has not moved to the alleged spot of incident inside the jungle and when the alleged murder of deceased has been committed inside Singharajkhunta Jungle and when the petitioner is not the principal culprit of the alleged incident, but his co-accused persons i.e. Biplab Mandal and Jayanta Mallick are the principal culprits of the alleged incident, then at this juncture, by taking the aforesaid roles of the petitioner in the alleged incident into account, it is felt proper to allow the petitioner to go on bail with stringent conditions.

¶28

Therefore, the bail application filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶29

He (petitioner) is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter with conditions that :-

¶30

Page 3 of 4.

¶31

(i) he (petitioner) shall not involve with similar nature of crime in future;

¶32

(ii) he shall appear before the Trial Court personally on each date of adjournment of the case personally without fail till its conclusion;

¶33

(iii) he shall not terrorize, coerce, influence or threat any witnesses of the prosecution including the informant and his family members either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever at any stage of the proceeding of the case, but in case of his failure to comply any of the aforesaid conditions, the Court in seisin over the matter is authorized to cancel his bail order out-rightly without seeking any permission for the same from this Court.

¶34